SNOW FALL IN 2010 DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING?

If you watch Fox news, you may have undoubtedly seen their news coverage on the record breaking snow fall for 2010. For some unknown reason, Fox news decided to use this recent snow fall to poke jabs at Al Gore, and the whole concept of global warming (see video above) with complete disregard to anything that resembles fact or even sound reasoning.


Let's look at some basic grade school science and common sense knowledge.

Fox assertion:
The volume of snow fall indicates that the country is getting colder, and not getting warmer.

Common sense Fact:
Snow fall volume has nothing to do with temperature, rather is has to do with the amount of moister in the atmosphere. Warm air holds more moister, and when that warm air is cooled, it dumps the moister in the form of rain or snow. One could deduct that the winter temperature has nothing to do with that amount of snowfall, and only indicates that the temperature is at or below freezing. In simplier terms, if the tempature drops a few degrees while snowing, the amount of snow fall will not change.

Fox assertion:
Global Warming must be a hoax.

Common Sense Fact:
There is no scientific consensus that debates whether or not global warming exist. The debate is whether or not "Man Made" global warm exist. Even those who wish to debunk "Man Made" global warming, do not dispute that global temperature changes occur.
Man Made global warming skeptics site data regarding ocean temperature, upper atmosphere temperature, and solar flare activity from the last naturally occurring global warming, as valid arguments against "Man Made" global warming. They do not, however, argue whether global warming exist. Only the cause is debated.

Conclusion:
It's become more then obvious that Fox News has decided to take extreme liberties, with no concern for the consequence of their action. For a major "News" network to resort to irresponsible, and inaccurate cometary is deplorable, and simply unacceptable.

The very fact that skeptics of "Man Made" global warming have remained silent regarding this commentary, even though it goes against their very own belief, speaks volumes on where they really stand on this issue.

Pro-choice, Or Pro-Life,How About A Debate Minus The Emotion?

Why I would tackle such a controversial topic, knowing with full clarity, I will undoubty offend some? My main motivation is that in my opinion, the current debate, avoids certain questions.

This article will focus on that very missing information, and avoid the usual arguments. Whether abortion is "Murder", or if woman have the right to make decisions about their own body will not be discussed, as these two talking points, as well as many others have already been debated at great length by many more qualified they myself. This discussion will start with one simple question, and a simple follow up question.

1.)What purpose does abortion serve when so many children are wanted for adoption.

2.)If abortion were to be outlawed, how many more children would be born, and what would happen to them?

I did some digging on the inter-web to find the answers to these two questions, and believe it or not, finding current statistical data is very hard to come by. Even worst, there seems to be a lot of contradictory data floating around, used to elevate one's perspective.


So let's look at some numbers, and see where we stand:
In 2005 820,000 abortions were performed. In fact, the abortaion rate has steadily declined over the last 35 years, despite a massive population increase during that same time period. In 1973 there were over 1 million abortions performed, and abortion was still illegal.

Assuming that these statics remain constant, we now have an idea of just how many children would be born per year if abortion were illegal.

Now, let's look at one of the most cited solutions to legal abortion; people waiting to adopt.

The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 232,000 women were currently taking concrete steps towards adoptions, compared to 204,000 in 1988. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999).

Again, assuming that these statics hold steady, approximately 250,000 children are wanted for adoption every year.

Obviously, there is a tremendous short fall of people who are seeking to adoption, versus the number of unwanted children that would be born if abortion were to become illegal.

By the time the first child born, that would have otherwise been aborted, turns 18 years of age, there would be 14,744,400 additional unwanted children added to the foster care system. This would increase the birth rate in the US by as much as 20%.

This brings up a serious obstacle. How do we manage, and care for 14 million extra unwanted children, and who pays for it?

Until this question is answered, there can be no real and honest debate. We live in a capitalistic country, and unlike a socialistic society, each citizen is responsible for themselves, and their family. With that responsibility, comes burden, and reward. What happens when some members of a society can simply not shoulder their responsibility, their burden?

What do you think? Please feel free to respond.

S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer Compares Helping Poor to Feeding Stray Animals

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals, You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

Many may find this surprising, or even outrageous. I, however, am not surprised, but I am outraged.

The one silver lining in our current political polarized climate, is that many in politics are starting to display their true colors. The true and deep hatred, and sense of entitlement are showing through. When the wealthy procreate, it's ALWAYS planned, and intentional? When the poor procreate, "They don't know any better"? I would like to ask Bauer what exactly "They" don't know? Maybe "They" don't know that they should not consider themselves worthy of procreation, because they are poor?

Bauer came from a wealthy family, and never had to struggle in is life.
This leads me to conclude that the wealthy really do believe that they are superior Americans! They feel they deserve more, and should, by all means, be given a stronger voice in deciding the direction of government, and OUR nation.

Why would a republican oppose abortion if they believe the poor breed like stray animals?
Bauer is a Republican, the party that wants to completely outlaw all forms of abortion. How can one proclaim that poor children are like stray animals, and that feeding them "results" in them "breading", yet wish to outlaw abortion?

How did we end up here?
We are slowing moving towards a 'Let Them Eat Cake" society, and the slow demise of the very vision of our founding fathers. What ever happened to "Bring us your tired, your weary, your poor"? What would our country be like if more like Bauer were in a position of authority in our government?

Full story and details

US Government Listed On Ebay, Forgien Bidders Welcome!

Any corporation can now spend as much as they wish on political advertising, even if that corporation is foreign owned. As crazy as this sounds, conservatives on the right think it's a good thing.

Here are the details of how the supreme court justices voted:

Sonia Sotomayor: Nominated by Obama 2009 (D)Against
Stephen G. Breyer: Nominated by Clinton 1994 (D)Against
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Nominated by Clinton 1993 (D)Against
John Paul Stevens: Nominated by Ford 1975 (R) Against
John G Roberts Jr: Nominated by G.W. Bush 2005 (R) For
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.: Nominated by G.W. Bush 2006 (R) For
Clarence Thomas: Nominated by H.W. Bush 1991 (R) For
Anthony M. Kennedy: Nominated by Regan 1988 (R) For
Antonin Scalia: Nominated by Regan 1986 (R) For

John Paul Stevens, the only republican to vote against this travesty, even wrote a 90 page brief on how this would hurt our country. He predicted that the ruling would "cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."

How could the only republican justice not appointed by the Bush twins, or Regan have such a different perspective? Or, maybe that's it, a reflection of those very administrations.

What's the big deal?
In simple terms, if a candidate fails to support legislation in favor of big business, those very corporations can now legally spend limitless amounts of money on political advertising opposing that candidate, and supporting his rival.

Imagine a less popular candidate, with policy the majority of Americans find unfavorable. That candidate could simply cater to the wealthiest corporations for limitless funding, advertising, and marketing to win office, even though the "Will of the people" has little chance of being served.

This has the potential of creating a "Ruling Class" composed of the wealthy, while destroying the vision of this country's founding fathers. The very concept "Of The People, By The People, For The People" is completely disassembled, and abolished.

Even worst, this ruling gives a deafening political voice to the wealthy citizens of foreign countries. ANY organization can open the flood gates of cash by simply incorporating in the US. America will not just be controlled by the wealthy American citizens, but the wealthiest of the world.

We can, in our life time, witness the end of American democracy, and the end of the greatest nation the world has even known.